Curriculum is not only the core of
the teaching-learning process, but it is also the life-blood for student - teacher
development. If it is true that the students can be as better as their teachers
are, it is also true that the teacher is as better as the curriculum he
teaches.

Curricular design in higher
education by and large, still follows traditional footsteps. The innovations
brought in various walks of life through ICT are yet not creatively
incorporated in designing curriculum. Teachers, here and there, disseminate
education through ICT; some of the Universities have attempted new designs; yet
looking at the larger picture of higher education, we find that a lot still
have to be ploughed in designing curriculum to harvest the rich dividends of
ICT.

One of the best and easy ways to
design curriculum is to promote blended learning. It is proven by various
researches and projects that blended learning has positive impacts on the
process of learning. But still the question of how creative we can be in
designing curriculum in such a way that we can make best use of available
technology along with our traditional scaffolds need to be addressed. We should
think about curriculum design, which can help us in giving space for
self-learning along with the changing role of teachers as facilitators. This
paper aims to explore such possibilities. It also aims at sharing a few
innovative changes made in the curriculum design where in by incorporating ICT
into traditional curriculum design, teacher-student autonomy, self-learning,
peer interaction and language skills were found to be improved among the
students.

Wordle image of Abstract of this Paper

Part I

John Franklin Bobbit in ‘The Curriculum’, which is said to be the
first textbook published on the subject, wrote that the curriculum,
as an idea, has its roots in the Latin word for race-course, though it
has nothing to do with the idea of horse race. He tried to explain curriculum
as “the course of deeds and experiences through which children become the
adults they should be, for success in
adult society” (1918). In this idea of the
curriculum, it can be read that it encompasses entire scope of
formative deed and experience not only occurring in school but in and out of
school; experiences that are unplanned and undirected, and experiences
intentionally directed for the purposeful formation of adult members of society
(Curriculum, 2012). Though it is
difficult to say if the researchers like Philip Jackson (Jackson,
1992)
and William F. Pinar (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, &
Taubman, 1995)
of today agree with Bobbit’s idea of the curriculum or not, yet it has a grain
of truth when he writes that the curriculum is a social engineering arena. One
of the many arguments, which may be of some interest in this paper, is that
curriculum defines and controls the deeds-experiences the student ought to
have to become the adult he or she ought to become. To put it in
simplistic terms, we can ask, what do we expect our students to become after
their studies? Our answers may be too idealistic or too pragmatic. But we can
zero down our answers to the golden mean wherein we expect the sorts of skills
ranging from ‘how to make living’ to ‘how to live’ to get inculcated among our
future custodians of culture, society, economics, politics and above all
academia. Thus, the importance of curriculum design is decidedly crucial in
making the future of the world after us better than what it is today. It is not only the core of the
teaching-learning process but it also is the life-blood for student - teacher
development. If it is true that the students can be as better as their teachers
are, it also is true that the teacher can be as better as the curriculum s/he
teaches.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that
this vital part of the education system by and large remains unexplored so far
as scientific methods and social engineering is concerned. Possessions of
relevant knowledge, creation of new knowledge, and the capacity for its
application have become the determinants in the strength of a nation.
Consequently, technical education has come to the centre stage and is today the
most important agent for change and development. (Lal, 2000). However, if we have
a birds-eye-view over the curriculums of the higher education in Gujarat and in
most of the traditional Universities of India, we find that we have ‘miles to
go before we take pride in making our young generation’s future brighter. Most
of the curriculum is designed from the perspectives of 20th century
ways of teaching and learning, which again was nothing but revised model
designed on Western curriculum framework, which was modeled on the idea of
Industrial Revolution (Robinson, 2010). If we are thinking
in terms of social engineering to prepare new generations for the future, how
can we rely on the means and ways of the past? The educationists who are
actively involved in the process of designing curricula belong to the time,
which was quite different from the time in which today’s kids are growing.
Today’s kids are living in digitally wired world wherein screens are flashing
information in the torrent of signals. When the curriculum designer of today
was a kid, there was hardly, single channel TV, and the number of newspapers
and magazines were quite negligible as compared to today’s plethora of TV
channels, mobile phones and latest technological gadgets. The kids, growing
amidst such an attack of information from all vistas obviously, have different
psychological tendency towards learning. For instance, multitasking or learning
from various sources at a time becomes their habit. There was a generation who
learned only from ‘books’, there is a generation which is learning from ‘screens’.
The book is changing its form and hence eReaders, eBooks & mobile books are
much in demand than traditionally printed books. Now, the million-dollar
question is how the people who are designing curricula will understand the
psychological needs of the new generation, which does not share common
experience of teaching / learning?

Therefore, the innovations and
creativity in curriculum designing should become a buzzword. A lot depends of
the imagination of the educationist to think out of the box and be bold and
experimental in trying out things that have yet not even thought in pedagogical
discourses. One of the ways of doing so seems to be in looking toward the
concept of blended learning with a novel way.

Part II

Let us see, first of all, what does this phrase ‘Blended Learning’
signify? Blended learning is not a new concept in the pedagogy. The recent buzz
around the word ‘blended learning’ and the number of articles in books,
magazine and journal, major thrusts in conference themes, and campus
initiatives focusing on ‘blended learning’ would lead one to believe that a new
educational phenomenon has been discovered. It is well observed in EDUCAUSE
Research Bulletin, “In actually, the blending of face-to-face instruction with
various types of non-classroom technology-mediated delivery has been practiced
within the academy for more than four decades (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004). Thus, it is not
exaggerated statement to say that ‘no teaching is possible without blended
learning’. It is always found that all teachers, down the ages, have
incorporated various approached and methods in teaching. None can ever say with
a guarantee that any single approach in teaching was adopted by any teacher at
any given moment of time in history of pedagogy. Blended learning was always in
practice and will always remain so in the classroom interaction. We may use
different names like ‘mixed-mode’ or ‘hybrid’ for what is described here as
blended learning. But still it is not so easy to use these words
interchangeably and conclude that blended learning as an idea does not offer
any new dimension in social engineering and pedagogical concerns of 21st
century. The way the term ‘blended learning’ recurrently used in the present
context signifies its meaning.

The Wikipedia entry on Blended learning defines it “in educational
research as something that refers to a mixing of different learning environments.
It combines traditional face-to-face classroom methods with modern
computer-mediated activities. According to its proponents, the strategy creates
a more integrated approach for both instructors and learners. Formerly,
technology-based materials played a supporting role to face-to-face
instruction. Through a blended learning approach, technology will be more
important” (Blended_learning, 2012). Well, this widely
accepted definition seems to say that technology is extremely crucial for the
concept of blended learning. A nexus for the development of such a model has
been online environment. DeZure, Buckley, Barr and Tagg, and others note that
the confluence of new pedagogies (for example, the change in emphasis from
teaching-centered to student-centered learning paradigms), new technologies
(for example, the rapid spread of the Internet, World Wide Web, and personal
computers/tablet PCs), and new theories of learning (for example, brain-based
learning and social constructivism) are enabling entirely new models of
teaching and learning and that this change is of sufficient magnitude to be
described as an educational transformation or paradigm shift (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004). The new learning
environment is heavily transformed and is influenced by web-based learning,
e-learning, and asynchronous learning networks, among other similar forms. Thus,
the concept of blended learning refers to curriculum design that combines
face-to-face classroom interaction with online learning environment (virtual
learning environment – VLE).

The question that pop-ups at this
juncture is ‘why, what and how to ‘blend’? Information and communication
technology (ICT) has brought in paradigm shift in every walk of life. We have
already entered the second decade of so called 21st century. The 21st
century in its significance incorporates ICT as a part of life. Teachers, who
are supposed to be the torchbearers of social change, unfortunately, are
followers so far as this social change is concerned. This is a noteworthy
observation because most of the ways of dealing have changed and this change is
brought in by ICT, whereas the teachers still are not so enthusiastic about
incorporating ICT as a part of their lives. Teachers, here and there,
disseminate education through ICT; some of the Universities have attempted new
designs; yet looking at the larger picture of higher education, we find that a
lot still have to be ploughed in designing curriculum to harvest the rich
dividends of ICT.

This answers to our question of
‘why’. The kids of tomorrow, the custodians of the future are growing in a
different environment. As it is already discussed in part I of this article
that ‘netizens’ have different psychological needs for learning, we are not
repeating it again. Instead, let us discuss some research outputs to prove our
point. The research by Garrison and Kanuka proves that blended learning
increases the options for greater quality and quantity of human interaction in
a learning environment, and offers learners the opportunity ‘to be both
together and apart’ (2004). Another theory is
that of ‘separate and connected knowing’ (Clinchy, 1989). This theory may help to look at human
interactions in different amounts at different times and results are used to
help improve communication and learning. It is because of such tendencies among
learners to be both together and apart, and separate knower and connected
knower, happening almost simultaneously that we are in need of blended learning
which is provided by VLEs.

Second, very significant concern is
‘what to blend’? If I am allowed to borrow words from ECAR (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004), I would like to put
it as ‘What proportion of each is required to label a course as ‘blended’?’
Well, blended learning retains the face-to-face element, making it – in the
words of many faculty – the ‘best of both worlds’ (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004). At times, teachers
do not understand where to stop and where to elaborate? Some topics would have
been wind up in a few lectures were as some would have been dealt in with
elaborated discussion. Time, space constraint and pressure to complete syllabus
in the stipulated time, at times, create hindrance. Thus, maximizing success in
a blended learning initiative requires a planned and well-supported approach that
includes a theory-based instructional model, high-quality faculty development,
course development assistance, learner support, and ongoing formative and
summative assessment (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004). At every point, it
should be kept in mind that blended learning is not to fill in the gaps of
teachers. Teachers cannot be replaced by VLEs. Blended learning redefines role
of teachers and makes teachers available to students on virtual world and thus
total hours of interaction between teacher-students does not decrease, in fact,
it increases. It helps teachers in better understanding of their teaching
methodologies and students progress.

Lastly, ‘how’ to ‘blend learning’
to gain maximum benefits? There is no panacea for this riddle. It is difficult
to give one definite model. The research scholars like DeZure, Buckley, Barr
and Tagg discussed various phenomena but it is worth mentioning that the final
selection of model for implementation depends on the local environment. This
local environment includes existing curriculum, space in the curriculum to
experiment, teachers’ aptitude, learners’ readiness and existing
infrastructure. Here again, it can be suggested to ask following questions on
the onset, which are proposed by ECAR (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004):

Key
Questions to Ask:

·What programs in your institution are
best suited for blended learning?

·What models of blended learning are most
appropriate for your campus?

·What support mechanisms are necessary to
ensure the success of blended learning on your campus?

·How can blended learning become an
effective mechanism for meeting some of your institution’s strategic initiatives?

·How will you assess the impact of
blended learning?

Before we end this discussion, it becomes necessary to take a case
study of blended learning and test the validity and reliability of these
questions in our educational environment, which is by and large traditional in
its methods of implementing curriculum objectives.

The research article would sound
like hollow words if the ideas and concepts discussed are not proved by its
practical implications. Let us have an overview of a case study on blended
learning. The working paper on this project was presented as digital poster
presentation in AsiaCALL International Conference (Barad, Poster Presentation: Using Web Tools in Convergence with
Traditional Learning, 2010).

The academic initiatives enforced
by UGC led all Universities to make specific changes. The Bhavnagar University
had been one of the leading Universities in Gujarat to implement such
initiatives when it was proposed by UGC Regulations 2009. In 2010, semester
system, with continuous internal assessment with weightage of 70:30 grade
points/marks was, introduced. This single change made dramatic changes for the
curriculum designer and faculty members. We, at Department of English, took
maximum advantage to bring in innovative changes. It was made mandatory by
Bhavnagar University to have three components in 30 marks continuous internal
assessment (now onwards mentioned as CIA), viz., Presentation, Assignments and
Test. We designed curriculum to give ample space for incorporation of ICT into the
teaching-learning process. Our learning objectives along with ‘developing
understanding of world literature and universal humanism’, were to make
students ‘future-friendly’. We wanted to make them techno-fluent. We observed
that most teachers of Arts faculty have a kind of aversion towards technology
as a pedagogical tool because they have ‘never seen their teachers using it’
and were never ‘taught with technology’. Thus, we wanted to make ICT integral
part of teaching – learning process.

We made following innovative
changes: (all these changes are made without disturbing face-to-face
interaction)

·Assignments should be submitted as blog
entry. Students are supposed to submit at least 21 assignments during the M.A.
(English) programme.

·Presentations shall be made only through
PowerPoint and it shall be video recorded. All students shall be given videos
of their presentations. Students are supposed to make 21 presentations during
the M.A. (English) programme.

·The test shall be the combination of
‘Online’ and pen – paper mode. All objective type tests shall be on Moodle VLE.

·At the end of the fourth semester, all
these (i.e. blogs, videos & presentations) shall be indexed on the students’
personal website. Google site was used for this task.

·For instructions and teacher-student
communication, SMS group and Google email group were used.

This was part of curriculum design
and as it was mandatory, no students were excused from it. The students were
given extra benefit of these online activities. In the CIA, students were
offered bonus marks/grade points for successfully carrying out these online
activities. We have to admit that until and unless, teaching and evaluation are
not incorporated and each and activity (whether face-to-face or online) is not
converted into grade points/marks, students will not participate
enthusiastically. Thus, the bonus point idea clicked well with the students.
Many students got the benefit of it. Some of them were physically ill or
ill-prepared on the day of presentation or test. But they did exceptionally
well in ‘online’ activities to save them from failing in CIA.

The obvious outcomes of this
blended learning project (Barad, 2012) are as under:

·It supported the argument that learning
is an active, social process. According to Kliebard (1992), John Dewey
(1859-1952) created an active intellectual learning environment in his
laboratory school during the early 20th century. Neuroscience now supports this
form of active learning as the way people naturally learn. Active learning
conditionalizes knowledge through experiential learning (Kliebard, 1992) (Construvtivism(learning_theory),
2012).
The students were found actively involved in the computer laboratory. Students
naturally acquired online skills and learnt some valuable skills like ‘writing
for web’. It was not part of curriculum to teach them e-skills but they
naturally learnt it from the environment, which was created because of
innovation in curriculum design.

·It proved what Smithwrote while
exploring John Dewey’s viewpoint. John Dewey believed education must engage
with and expand the experience; those methods used to educate must provide for
exploration, thinking, and reflection; and that interaction with the
environment is necessary for learning; also, that democracy should be upheld in
the educational process. (Smith, 2001). It was quite
surprising to see that students were keen to stay more at Department and were
found engaged in discussion about studies before, between and after the
face-to-face lectures. What was incredible to observe was that students were involved
in active learning, exploration, thinking and reflection. They were asked to
make comments / raise questions/doubts / initiate discussion under the blogs
and presentations. This provided them space for interaction with the
environment. More importantly, the level of transparency was so high that it
helped to upheld democratic values in the environment. Internal marking systems
are always marred by charges of corruption. As the entire internal evaluation
was shifted to VLE, the parents as well as classmates can view and openly
comment on the marks/grades allotted by teachers to the students. This amounts
to greater transparency and helps in establishing trust in the education
system.

·The outcome of ECAR (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004) found its support in
this project. Hence, we agree to say that it helps instructors evolve as
designers of active learning environments, thus becoming much more facilitative
in their teaching. Interestingly, this phenomenon is consistent with what Carl
Rogers (1983) called the
‘facilitative teacher’. Initially, teachers found it awkward to work and
interact with students on virtual environment. However, later it was realized
that being facilitator is quite different from being a teacher. The ideals that
we have attached with teachers as being friend, philosopher and guide are
normally not fulfilled in physical traditional environment. The virtual world certainly
helps teachers being friendly facilitators rather than being ‘dictators’ in the
classroom. Mostly, teachers feel that they are creating a conducive environment
for the students but if students were asked, they would reveal how frightened
they are to interact with teachers in the physical world. Nevertheless, on the
virtual world, such inhibitions are broken and students feel better off with
their teachers.

·The environment created by blended
learning brings in mixed reflections from students. Many students lament the
loss of face-to-face contact and a few have techno-phobia, which averts them to
respond on VLE. Thus, it was observed during this project that students must
learn to ‘unlearn’ the habits of learning in traditional methods before
‘relearning’ how to learn on VLEs. We agree with the observations of ECAR -
“the rhythms of blended courses differ from those in face-to-face classes,
forcing students to stay actively engaged and connected. For students, the
landscape of learning is drastically altered, although they are still to anchor
their learning experience on the familiar face-to-face class meetings”. (Dziuban,
Hartman, & Moskal, 2004).

·Lastly, let us conclude with the
benefits of using Moodle Virtual Learning Environment. As the design and
development of Moodle is guided by “social constructionist pedagogy", it
helps a lot in fulfilling the objectives of Constructivism (Moodle, 2012) From a constructivist point of view,
people actively construct new knowledge as they interact with their
environments. Moodle’s Philosophy web page mentions – “Social constructivism
extends constructivism into social settings, wherein groups construct knowledge
for one another, collaboratively creating a small culture of shared artifacts
with shared meanings. When one is immersed within a culture like this, one is
learning all the time about how to be a part of that culture, on many levels” (Moodle, 2012). Teachers as well as
students experienced this during this project. Teachers became more creative in
teaching. The time of interaction increased in the classroom, which, in
traditional mode, was wasted in the dissemination of information only. The
process of information turning into knowledge was experienced as more time was
dedicated in interpretation and reflective thinking.

·One of the major limitations of this
project was infrastructure. We felt that students of Arts faculty (especially
of our Department) still are not able to get personal computer with hi-speed
internet at their residences. Therefore, the institute has to provide all these
facilities and time to work on these tasks. Fortunately, the department of
English can make provision for 1:2 computes with hi-speed internet connection,
and the lab was kept open on holidays also so that students can spare ample
time to complete their online tasks.

In spite of issues related to
students, faculty and institutes, the impact of blended learning is positive. It
is difficult to disagree with ECAR (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004) when they conclude:
“The process is always formative and sometimes opportunistic. The outcomes are
most effective when participants share an inspiring vision; seek maximum
possible involvement; bring out the best in others; celebrate accomplishments;
and model behaviour that facilitates collaboration.” The synergy of traditional
face-to-face methods with that of an online environment helps in fostering positive
realignment in HEIs.

Jackson, P. W. (1992). Conceptions of Curriculum and
Curriculum Specialists. In E. b. Jackshon, Handbook of Research on
Curriculum: A Project of the American Educational Research Association
(pp. 3-40). New York: Macmillan.

Kliebard, H. (1992). Constructing a History of
American Curriculum. Handbook of Research on Curriculum, 157-184.